Legal Opinion
In Re Porterfield
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 28, 1944No. Crim. 1832Published
1Opinion of the Court
63 Cal.App.2d 518 (1944)
In re JAMES PORTERFIELD, on Habeas Corpus.
Crim. No. 1832.
California Court of Appeals. Third Dist.
Mar. 28, 1944.
Clarence E. Todd for Petitioner.
Glenn D. Newton for Respondent.
THOMPSON, J.
By means of habeas corpus the defendant seeks to obtain his release from custody after having been convicted of violating an initiative ordinance of the city of Redding prohibiting soliciting, for compensation, without a license, memberships in organizations requiring the payment of dues.
It is contended the ordinance is void for the reason that it violates the right of freedom of speech…
2Cases cited60 opinions
- Yick Wo v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Cantwell v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Thornhill v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Haguer v. Committee for Industrial OrganizationSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington)Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.